Okay – I must of got my wired crossed as I am sure I read about a pool of Phalanx’s available for fitting but I assume that I confused it with the 16 Phalanx being upgraded.

So how many CIWS systems is the RN short by if they were to fit it a CIWS on every ship that was designed to accommodate them?

Also when CAMM and the new soft kill system’s come on line later in the decade is it likely that they will phase out Phalanx? i.e. does CAMM have the ability to provide last ditch defence against sea skimming missiles?

Making a few rapid counts:
4×2 = 8 Phalanx for the Bay class.
2×2 = 4 Phalanx for the Wave
2×4 = 8 Phalanx for the Fort class
6×2 = 12 Phalanx for the Type 45
(3×2= 6 Phalanx for CVF)

Ideally, the RN of the immediate future would need to get, between new buy and upgrades, a total of 32 Phalanx 1B if i’m not wrong.
Again, the Type 26 is expected to have a couple of Phalanx herself, so
10×2 = 20 another 20 Phalanx

CAMM, just like Seawolf, is a missile designed for self-defence of ships at sea. Point defence against planes and missiles as well.
However, every graphic of the Type 26 shows a couple of Phalanx fitted to it for true last-ditch defence, so no. The CAMM, just like Seawolf, would be complemented by Phalanx.

However, the Type 26 may end up fitted with Sea Ram, more than Phalanx, since Phalanx is getting outdated, and several years have still to pass before the first Type 26 comes out. Since Sea Ram was expected already for Type 45, i’m assuming that the Type 26 truly will get it.

As to armour and protection, instead, i finally found again the excellent article of Navy Matters about that:

Unlike all British carriers prior to the Invincible-class, no significant amount of armour – be it hardened steel, composite or ceramic – is likely to be included in the CVF design, although details are classified.

As key assets the CVF’s will be heavily guarded by escorting ships such as the Type 45 destroyer, but if all other measures fail they must be able to protect themselves from any “residual threats” that penetrate the defences of their escorts. During 2001 threat and vulnerability studies were undertaken by the Centre for Defence Analysis (CDA) for CVF, these studies took in to account big changes in the nature of the threat since the 20,000 tonnes Invincible-class were designed in the early 1970’s, back then it was considered almost pointless trying to provided structural defence against the type of Soviet heavyweight torpedoes’ and missiles likely to be encountered in the North Atlantic, if the ship stayed afloat after a hit, that was the best that could be expected. Nowadays the threats are far more diverse, as well as “traditional” anti-ship missiles and torpedoes launched from aircraft, patrol boats, submarines or surface ships, the RN has become very aware of new threats in littorals and confined waters such as suicide speed boats. The much larger CVF’s will have to be able to cope with scenarios never considered for the Invincible class, for example it would be extremely embarrassing (at the very least) if a small craft approached a CVF in harbour and was able to disable her with just a hail of RPG’s and light cannon fire.

In 2002 QinetiQ were awarded a contract by the MOD to study the vulnerability of the competing BAE and Thales design concepts to damage from a wide variety of mechanisms that could be inflicted by an above water or underwater attack. QinetiQ also studied the possibility that an explosion in one weapons magazine might trigger a similar explosion in another magazine.

Since the down-select in January 2003, QinetiQ have continued to assist the ACA at stages in the platform design process. They use their Survive rapid vulnerability assessment tool develop an appropriate computer model of CVF and determine how vulnerable the design is, why it was vulnerable and what can be done to make it less vulnerable. Survive simulates a multitude of primary and secondary damage mechanisms including: blast, fragmentation, shock, whipping, residual strength, flooding, fire and smoke and crew movement. QinetiQ have helped optimise the armour levels without compromising protection – in some areas suggestions were that armour levels were increased and in others that they were reduced. They also considered the number of casualties that might occur as the result of a weapon strike.

Based upon the results of the threat studies, side armour and blast resistant bulkheads were incorporated in to the 2002/3 Thales CVF Alpha design in order to protect important compartments such as the Operations Room, resulting in a very tough ship. However as part of the cost cutting trade-off’s made during the second half of 2003, many of these protective measures apparently had to be deleted.

In the CVF Delta design concept adopted in December 2003, considerable emphasis was instead placed upon including military standard damage control facilities, extensive internal subdivision and bulkheads, and providing the infrastructure for a high quality NBCD organisation. It now seems that the primary protection of critical spaces such as magazines, steering gear, and ops rooms will be the location of these compartments deep in the ship. But it remains possible that some such spaces will quietly receive some physical protection such as Kevlar for splinter protection. The inclusion, or not, of such passive protection during the design and manufacture is likely to be classified, in accordance with recent practice. In April 2007 the CVF IPT Team Leader, Rear Admiral Bob Love, stated “Specific Naval and Defence Standards have also been retained in other areas where a commercial equivalent is not appropriate such as the magazines. Remember that the size of the vessel alone does give a degree of protection and this has allowed us to make pragmatic adjustments to the design.”

The CVF design is not “stealthy”, but considerable effort is being made to reduce signatures (radar, heat, acoustic) to a degree that allows the effective use of passive soft kill countermeasures and off board decoys. When “clean”, a 280m long 65,000 tonnes displacement CVF carrier will have a radar return similar to a 38m 300 tonnes trawler.

In late 2003 a cost cutting design review included the deletion of all hard kill weapon systems and a reliance on soft-kill defences alone (while retaining ‘fitted for but not with’ provisions for close-in weapons). One MOD is quoted as saying “The reality is that these ships will never leave port without being in a taskforce, including submarines and destroyers to protect them.”

The graphics first published in 2004 showed three Phalanx CIWS mounts for final defence against aircraft and missiles, and four MSI DS30B 30mm light calibre cannons for self defence against small surface targets in littoral waters, anchorages and harbours. Some of the locations seemed to be rather exposed (the portside forward sponsons) or less than ideal (the stern Phalanx mount).

Graphics since 2004 have continued to regularly show what appear to be Phalanx and MSI 30mm cannon mounts – although the locations have been tweaked to give better firing arcs.

So we are definitely risking to see CVFs fitted with not even Phalanx. Unless, of course, some can be recovered from the Type 42 that go out of service.
The Type 45 HMS Daring now has been accepted in service officially, but still i checked the latest photos and still it is missing the Phalanx.

Is it so complex to dismount them from the retired Type 42 and move them to the newest ships? Phalanx is designed to be a “bolt-on” device, the RN personell should be more than capable to move them from a ship to the other without any extra-expense being needed.

Same goes for the Stingray torpedoes. The Type 42 had Stingray launchers: these could be most likely moved to the Type 45 as well, i’m guessing.
Why is it taking so long to do so…?

On that line of thinking there is no reason why you couldn’t get Aster to fire on a ship, probably would require a software fix. Considering the Americans test fire Standard against surface targets and Aster is an active missile you could probably program it to fire at a target on the horizon or even over the horizon with off platform targeting.

Sea Dart was capable to hit surface targets, and there’s at least a version of Sea Sparrow which can do it as well. Probably it would be possible to fire Aster at surface targets as well… but software modifications would be the very least needed to allow that, and no one is going to put the money on the table for that.

CAMM, it has been said, may be rolled out with that capability from the start: MBDA has been told to do it within the budget already agreed, though. Not an extra penny for that. Personally, i hope they manage to obtain that capability.
For land-based used in particular, it would be a blessing, as it would make more flexible the air defence units, and more useful in any kind of operation.

especially as as ARTISAN on the CVF will be the same as the T-26. although the best option in my opinion is perhaps replacing a Phalanx mount with a CAMM canister so you don’t sacrifice deck space for it

Canisters could always be bolted to the sponsons, or to the extremities of the flight deck, without eating space up.
Also, CAMM should present nearly no problem of integration: on the Type 26 it will be fired by its own canister, and on the Type 45 it is theorically possible to fit 4 CAMM canisters into a single cell of the VLS system. The only integration required would be to ensure the VLS launch tube opens when the CAMM must be fired, but the missile does not need to be integrated in the launchers as it has its own unique launch system.

The CAMM on Type 45 could replace the Aster 15, with the latter missile possibly being converted to Aster 30 by changing the launch booster, since that’s the only difference between 15 and 30.

Another interesting feature of CAMM is that it was reported that MBDA was looking at making it suitable for anti-surface work as well. Against small targets, it could be very handy.

Ideally, the Type 26 should have a “strike depth” missile compartment for VLS canisters. A couple of 8-cell sections of MK41 Strike Lenght could be basic fit, armed with Tomahawks, while 2 more eight cell blocks would be CAMM canisters, but with space reservation to fit additional MK41 launchers in exchange. In a graphic i have of the Type 26 apparently there’s a second, dedicated CAMM launcher over the helicopter hangar, after all.

I had heard that Typhoon was out of the review (save for Tranche 3B), and until recently the RAF was reportedly interested in finding ways to stretch the expected airframe life of the Typhoons T1 to keep them in service longer… We are talking about 46/49 airframes over the expected total of 160. Scrapping over 40 in one go would be a mighty blow to the front line of the RAF…

May it be that the RAF is, using the argument of possible penalities for the UK for renouncing to Tranche 3B, offering to get rid earlier of older, already used and needing-upgrades airframes in the hope to secure a Tranche 3B contract in exchange later on, which would provide new, more performant airframes at costs all-in-all advantageous considering all the work that T1 would require?

As to scrapping the Tornado in five years, i was asking myself why no one ever got around to quote Marham on the list of the RAF Stations at risk. If the Tornado goes, Marham remains without planes at all, and wouldn’t it make sense at that point to close it?
Also, an urgent upgrade may be needed for the Typhoons for integration of the RAPTOR reconnaissance pod now used by Tornado GR4. It is the top of the recon capability of the RAF, and it is being used a lot, so we can expect it would fly from the middle station under the Typh’s belly.

Happy to hear Dannatt goes, though, because as i’ve already said, he’s crazily army-centric. He’s the worst danger of all for the Armed Forces at the moment, and the less power he has, the better.

A last point about F35B: ideally, the requirements would call for 72 active planes in 6 frontline squadrons, each with 12 airframes, like current Tornado strike squadrons.
6 active squadrons would ensure that at least a carrier can be filled up, and possibly even both in case of need. Besides, it would give back the RAF the frontline strike might it has now.

72 active F35B would require probably as many more as 14 in a OCU unit, and perhaps a number more of airframes for training, reserve and spare parts that i don’t know how to calculate.
Wouldn’t it be possible, with say 100 airframes, have 72 serving in frontline squadrons? 72 + 14 OCU + 14 more for, say, a OEU/reserve. I admittedly don’t know what’s the policy of the RAF about the balance total airframes/active airframes, so i make assumptions.
Sure, 130 planes to keep 72 active it looks to me a bit of a waste, sincerely. I’m hoping that a new plane, modern like the F35B, would allow less waste.
It would still be a cut of 50 (or 38) airframes from the original plan.

Then keep things as they are, if you truly like so.
Keep maiming british defence industry and british armed forces to give money away here and there. If the UK is so desperate to cut its debt, i truly can’t accept that it can at the same time ringfence the obscenely high amount of money it gives in aid. Noble as it is, it is just wrong when you are cutting defence, roads, sanity, EVERYTHING off your budget. That is what i don’t accept: to give away all that money while having to renounce to so much things at the forefront of UK’s own interests.
When your family is burdened by debts, you don’t play good samaritan giving away the money while cutting on the clothes and food of your own children.
Same reasoning should work for the state.

Anyway, if for you it makes sense to continue on this road, go ahead. And pray to never have the need to once again cry for it later, as it already happened so many times in your history when “there’s no enemies” was the rule of thought.

Oh, and keep bitching about budgets being cut, and taxes getting higher, and industry cutting more jobs.
Keep reading articles like that one i saw yesterday about Bae cutting jobs even if it posted results in profit.
If you haven’t understood it yet, a lot of jobs are going to go very soon. Bae, Qinetiq, a lot of servicemen that are WORKERS much as people forgets it, and that become jobless people when they are laid off, and all the other people who lives on the money put in circle by military bases if the bases are closed.

I don’t care if it is India or whatever else. I say it is a wrong priority, and a damaging one. Even assuming that Aid is used as strategically as possible, it still won’t be enough to balance the damage caused by cuts on the budgets at home in the UK. Even assuming UK aid influences decision making abroad, (too simple to assume such a thing: the biggest aider in this reasoning would be hailed as a king, then) even assuming the contracts with british industries announced by India (again, India is an example, quit staring to the finger and not to the Moon behind it) have been helped by aid, they still don’t balance half of the damage of the austerity at home. Even the Hawks contract will support merely 200 jobs in the UK since most of the work is to be done in India. As for all the other contracts, practically.
To stop or severely reduce oversea aid until the debt is under control would mean less severe cuts on the rest of the UK budget, and thus reduce the damage.
If you believe differently, you are seriously wrong. Sorry, but it is true.

The problem with selling PoW is it would be at a loss probably a quite significant one. In effect UK tax payer ends up paying another countries navy to take her on. The only saving from selling is the through life costs, so the massive savings that people seem to think will happen if we get rid of a carrier (or both) won’t be apparent for many years.

Of course.
But… you think that fact would stop government from savaging the Navy?
The sales of the 3 Type 23 in the Labour years should have (unfortunately) showed us all that good sense is in short supply.
Sound reasoning is not fashion, evidently.

After all, the budget for politicians, parliaments and such is unaffordable, but there’s no savage cuts coming on that. What a surprise, huh…? No need for savings on their pay, no no.